Meh, the main advantage of He3 fusion is that it's aneutronic. It's not better enough than the D-T cycle to justify a lunar mining operation for the purposes of powering civilization on Earth - where D and Li are common, and we can breed T and extract energy from the neutrons without that much difficulty. He3 I think would be really nice for spacecraft fusion engines in the future though, where you'd want more easily controllable charged particles from which to extract energy and produce thrust.
What about positron emission? A proton has a +1 positive charge, so one could say it has one proton, one positron, and one electron. By emitting the positron, you combine remaining proton and electron to make a neutron. Is it possible to emit a positron and convert a proton to a neutron?
good video... One question- the chemical reaction seems to be not balanced when you talk about substituting in the He-3. The reactants have 3 protons and the products have 2 protons. What am I missing?
Tritium can be created easily by combining the extra neutron with Li 6 or N 14. It would me much more efficient to pump liquid lithium or Nitrogen through the walls of a fusion reactor than to go all the way to the moon for fuel. As for deuterium, it can be extracted from seawater, and would provide power for one million years+
this is all very interesting, but this means world wide destruction because humans are smart and savage, looking into history obviously humans are more violent than smart so were inevitably doomed.
Space program is about to hit Recycling can. Why ? Because in the cold war Russians and Americans rushed into space, money was being supported from Millitary funds. Now space is unprofitable and yes we live in Capitalism so it's not interesting anymore. Science tends to burn money not produce it, but it's goal is for greater good. Who follows those standards these days right ?
Also to imitate the Sun is a bit far fetched, we have greater chance of making a cold fusion in ITHER
So this idea of harvesting from the moon brings a few questions to mind. Now I know that 25 tons is minuscule in proportion compared to the overall mass of the moon. So mining from the moon in the beginning most likely wouldn't be a problem. However, over time it could potentially have a greater effect on our planet and it's planetary functions. Just looking for some insight here.
@AFullerton86 Everything we do -- or DON'T do -- has an impact on the planet. We ARE part of the ecosystem. We just need to choose our impacts wisely for the benefit of ourselves and other parts of that system.
@cassiopeiaproject If I'm not mistaken, H^3 is scattered on the surface of the moon. Therefore no under the surface mining is required, rather just gathering top soil.
*I believe* it is because elements from the sun are changed within and bounced off of our atmosphere into space and since the moon does not have a substantial atmosphere to reflect the element like the Earth does, the moon catches some of these reflected elements where it, for the most part, sits on the top meters of the surface.
@AFullerton86 seems conceivable to me that it could develop potential to effect the earth - moon system. as energy demands rise exponentially it's natural to figure that moon mining would follow suit in order to feed demand. added to this is the reduced mass of the moon and the increased mass of earth - the numbers would for a long time be trivial, but perhaps considerable after some time. do you have any thoughts?
Wake up and smell reality people. Those of you who think we have not gone to the moon are no better than birthers, deathers, and every other conspiracy nut. You all obviously have no faith in human ingenuity. I wish that our species could be a little more accepting of amazing achievements and great discoveries.
@macreviewer76 whats so amazing about splitting an atom? WHAT? Is it the knowledge of sub atomic building blocks that gets you morons off? Hope you all get radiation poisoning and birth a mutant.
The most ridiculous method of boiling water ever conceived! We should shut down all of these water boiling plants and send the radioactive material back to the sun where it would feel more at home. Steam used to power generators that could easily be powered by the kinetic energy of A DOZEN OTHER SOURCES THAT DO NOT CREATE SUCH DANGEROUS CENTURY LONG PROBLEMS! Some of these nuclear scientists are COMPLETE LEFT BRAIN MORONS!
@NebulizedNarcosis A) the sun uses fusion, and thus produces almost no radiation like in fission, you obviously have not payed any attention to the video. radioactive material like uranium would never survive and does not exist on, or in the sun B) The energy efficiency of using fission completely outweighs that of any other energy source in use today, so you would be an idiot to say that we can just use a load of coal and oil to satisfy all of our needs when, long term, it would be impossible
@macreviewer76 who said anything about coil and oil ? I am saying that the best place to send FATAL radioactive byproducts is the sun. Stop splitting hairs like you even have a mind of your own you regurgitating science drone. You actually believe the manipulation of atoms for energy is our key to abundant motor spinning? Or maybe, you work for the oil barons and would love nothing more than to see a few more Chernobyls, occurring of course only on lunar eclipses when in alignment with Pluto.
sorry but i dont get how much binding energy is released, i thought the product of fission is supposed to use less binding energy than the original atom and the free binding energy is released as energy?
So at the end there, the max payload would be for takeoff, right? But we'd be bringing back He3 from the moon, right? And the space shuttle doesn't travel to the moon anyway. This last idea is just crazy to throw into this otherwise great video...
we are not going back to the moon. it's fairly clear that we never went to the moon.. it was just one huge hoax...There are so many obstacles that will not permit man to reach the moon. at least not with the actual technology..maybe one day in the future, but i'd doubt it if it 'll ever happen..
@9hello123 YES in theory it is easily possible. In theory, we can travel at the speed of the light as well. u'd only need strong gravitational force(blackhole) and something to keep u in its orbit, then in theory u've got yourself a time machine. BUT in reality it's impossible, at least not with today's technology. So let me teach you something here; just because it's possible on paper, it doesn't mean it's feasible.we never went to the moon because we haven't acquired the technology to do so.
@rezanoei No, you are completely and utterly wrong.
One you don't understand what the word theory means, you used it completely out of context every time in that paragraph. Yes its possible to make a time machine, to the future not the past, and no its not impossible with todays technology, we have already done it.
Going to the moon is EASILY possible. It would take very very little technology, all it would need to be would be fairly expensive (less expensive than hoaxing it would be).
@9hello123 completely and utterly !! haha let me teach u something about english literature,, utterly means completely.. lol don't try to sound fancy when u don't have a good knowledge of english language. secondly, theory means an assumption based on limited information or knowledge.. and yes i got a degree in physics. I told u before, there are so many obstacles preventing us to reach the moon, one of them being "solar flares ".. but hey, if u wanna be a sheep , then be a sheep...winks
@rezanoei You're trying to correct my English yet you are typing "u"
No theory does not mean an assumption based on limited information or knowledge,it means explanation. It has nothing to do with the amount of proof for it.No you don't have a physics degree or you would know that. Solar flares not only are fairly rare to be aimed at the Earth,nearly all are virtually harmless as proven by our satellites are a lot more vulnerable to solar flares than people are, but they aren't all destroyed.
@9hello123 Actually, a theory, in scientific terms, is always backed up by evidence. If you have no evidence it is called a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation for some natural occurrence, that can be validated by experiment. So a theory must be testable, and validated by the data resulting from such tests. If you're theory is not validated by data, then you must revise your original hypothesis and see if you can validate it. Only once backed by data do scientists call it a theory.
@rezanoei And you say "In theory, we can travel at the speed of the light as well. " Which even assuming that theory means what you say it does (it doesn't) still is incorrect. It is impossible to reach the speed of light. Don't bother claiming you have a physics degree, it's so obvious you don't.
@9hello123 listen, i don't need to prove u if i have a degree in physics or not.. i told u, believe what u want, it's a free world.. the problem with the american government is that their foundations have always been based on deceit and robbing people from their rights..it's funny that a bunch of thieves and liars are governing the world .. It's your choice if u wanna be fooled by them, and believe whatever they are trying to feed you.
@rezanoei The American government are the government of America not the world.
I don't believe what they feed me, unlike you I actually have an education in physics and know without being told exactly how it is possible to get to the moon. I'm sure if I can easily calculate ways to do it if I had the money, a large organised team with countless amounts of manhours and money could also figure out ways to do it.
Not to mention the reflectors on the moon are absolute proof anyway.
Sorry, i need an explenation... Why it's said that anytime a fission of uranium take place we get 192 Mev of energy and when we fuse H2 and H3 to get He4 we gwt 18? Isn't it unconvinient. i know that fusion is more convenient than fission!
@giovannimazzoleni Because that's what happens? I don't understand what you want explaining, are you asking why don't scientists just make up random results?
Sorry, i need an explenation... Why it's said that anytime a fission of uranium take place we get 192 Mev of energy and when we fuse H2 and H3 to get He4 we gwt 18? Isn't it unconvinient. i know that fusion is more convenient than fission!
How can the nucleus of an Iron atom have 60 nucleons if it's atomic number is only 29? Sorry if it's a stupid question, I'm just trying to make sense of all this.
@imtheduke Exactly correct on the protons and electrons. There are four naturally occurring isotopes of iron (different number of neutrons in the nucleus). They have 28, 30, 31, and 32 neutrons. There is an isotope of iron with 34 neutrons, but is is extinct on earth.
@cassiopeiaproject thanks for the info, and thank you Carl Sagan. I had forgotten so much about these basic principles of chemistry and science in general since leaving school years ago. Sagan's work got me interested again and I'm relearning a lot.
@imtheduke. The atomic no. (also known as the proton number) only accounts for the amount of protons in the atom (also the no. of protons in atom = no. of electrons). However the top number, or nucleon number accounts for the amount of nucleons in the atom (nucleon is the combination of protons and neutrons).Therefore by subtracting the proton no. from the nucleon no. you can find the amount of neutrons in the atom. In this case there are 31 neutrons in the iron atom (60 - 29).
At 1:28 he said that with iron and nickel have 16 nucleons in the nucleus and the nucleus is more than 2 1/2 nucleons wide. My question is... how can the nucleus be only 2 1/2 nucleons wide when there are that many nucleons in it?
Poster must have made this before they decided to phase out the shuttle, or he is so into Star Trek that he dreams of some future utopian society is mankind ever solves the energy crisis, as if that would solve everything, lol
or to keep the options open, don't forget that one could just remove/cancel the strong force(of effect of).to make this reaction achievable at any temperature/pressure.
@cassiopeiaproject Right. The lifetime of a free neutron is only about 10 minutes, so it's not as if we can get them out of a mine somewhere. We could generate them using a nuclear fission reactor, but that is what we're trying to get away from.
some body's on the moon and for forty years they been making sure that oil wouldnt be a second option and that this energy would be put in its place!````` the moon revolves around the earth and rotates on its axis once per month "" whats the word for that
Well, no need to worrie about harvesting moon rock. Apparently 1% of the ocean contains deuterium. = ) N im pretty sure we're not going to run out of that anytime soon.
if we mine the dang moon, arent we going to lower its mass and this will disturb its gravitational orbit with the earth since it will disturb the force of attraction with earth? in other words, we mine the moon and bang it will fling out of orbit and we we' ll probably be all fucked up cause its the moon that holds the oceans together at one peice, etc.
should we fuck w/ the orignal ways of nature? Man-made created energy, the energy by the billions that man wants to create, is it not going to interfere w/ the energy created by nature that already exists & is balanced?
@bubblesmgee so far as you are concerned no. Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed. We take energy from nature, it goes back to nature.
@BBZZZZZ I know it cannot be created or destroyed, but will the transformations that man creates, interfere or create new energy that will interfere w/ the stability that already exists, it's not the energy type that I'm concerned about, it's the amount, yes energy goes back to nature, but what does it do to the world in the mean time, especially w/ large amounts? Don't u think that it might produce a kind of energy war, & thus throw the balance of the planet off?
We are not going back to the moon. Also, tritium is not the reason we would go back there, if we did. There is no such thing as a controlled, economical fusion reaction, and it is unlikely we will have one in the near future.
@fordskydog i made that comment a year ago... and i stand by it, who built the safety back-up rods for chernobyl, america, who dropped the atom bombs, america, who gave osama bin ladens father fissionable uranium in return for oil, making him one of the richest men in the world? ummm france? no, germany? no, oh thats right! it was america :)
@Danemarkofmalvern I don't get your point. "which played with forces it couldn't handle and it exploded." My point was USA is no longer leader in nuclear reactor research. Are you saying USA is foolhardy and has destroyed itself? Do you mean nuclear forces? Or political forces? How has USA "exploded?" Are you implying has, will destroy itself? Maybe our demise will arise from corp greed, allowing oil companies to kill development of the next big thing. We aren't investing in our future.
@IcedPhoenix666 actually there are several good reasons for borders, 1 is to keep foreign diseases and illnesses away from places that arent immune to said illness. 2 is to keep drugs away from the country. 3 is to keep foreign animals from destroying crops, produce, and any number of things.
There are advantages and disadvantages to everything. All these problems you name are controllable or solvable, and not necessarily by only one way.
In order for science to advance together, we must be together. On the political side, it is not fair that person A gets exceptional health care and legal defence, and person B gets zero, just because they were born on different sides of an imaginary line.
you have a point but right now borders are the only way to keep whatever it is out but until the day borders become obsolete i will welcome those who pass through
I would like to imagine a world without borders but I can't imagine the people who would regulate the laws and control the government of the new world.
Science is in the hands of very powerful capitalist/corporate interests who gain great advantage from it's development. I suppose you could substitute Capitalism for "The USA"
Science is in the hands of very powerful capitalist/corporate interests who gain great advantage from it's development. I suppose you could substitute Capitalism for "The USA"
man GET A LIFE PEOPLE if your gonna spend your time online just screwing with people, then your nothing than just a crap stain in the bottom of society's pants, please just make a comment on the video, and quit the kindergarten crap, save the insults for springer, or your dead grandmas rotten crotch..
lol so i read through the comments and i'm curious.....how does a video on fission and fusion end up being people insulting eachother about the lifestyle....
however the movie has a darker side :D in the movie they cloned the worker that mined the he 3 and he never knew :D
ofc that has nothing to do with the science behind it ^^ (atleast now i know why they called it he3 ..i thaught it was was He3 as in a molecule ...i forgot it could be an isotope)
So, at the end of the day a Nuclear_power plant is nothing more than a steam-engine with a fancy replacement for the charcoal.
There's got be a better way of harnessing energy from atomic-fission, isn't there - ok, that sounds rather pretentious of me implying nobody ever thought there might be a better way of doing that but still, the question remains: isn't there a more efficient way of harnessing energy from atomic-fission than boiling water?
you know, people with such an obsession with homosexuals invariable have an inner desire of experimenting sex with the same gender but it is usually a feeling supressed by all the tabus society forces into our heads so it is manifested via an angry attitude towards homosexuals. Brake free dude.
Now judging by the content of your comments I'd say you are not equipped to understand such a statement. Lol, so I'll translate for you:
Get out of the closet, lol... "tigerslash" (how embarassing)
when you are talking about fission, the energy released is thermal. if you want to convert thermal energy, you have to use it to heat something up. i am not certain but id imagine the method is pretty much perfected (really efficient)
It depends on what you want to use the energy for. As advanced as we may think of ourselves, our approach to energy production and use is pretty stone age-ish. Creating thermal energy, and trying to trick the universe out of squandering most of it, is not very efficient; it does well if you want to heat space (like homes) directly, but there are better ways of harnessing it for electrical power. Fuel cells and the like are the start of a rational engineering in that direction.
...Chemical synthesis can be much better done by focusing appropriate radio, microwave or light frequencies rather than just blasting them with heat. Eventually our means will catch up with our dreams and these will become a better way.
except 1 detail. you can't (yet) make a fusion reaction, cause it needs a lot of heat and pressure. fusion is only possible in stars and other cosmic objects. but if we could it would be awsome. you could make deuterium out of protium and get energy, and then split it to protium, and get more energy. you would be making energy with just two molecules of protium.
Can't do that. You may indeed get energy by combining hydrogen into helium, but splitting them back down absorbs that same energy. You don't get something for nothing.
We are approaching fusion (slowly) through magnetic containment (Tokamak and like reactors) and through inertial containment, where we zap a bead of Deuterium with lasers. They are difficult to control, but eventually the difficulties will likely be overcome. Then there is always the way-longshot hope of some sort of cold fusion.
Actually, you don't see electrons in lightning. What you do see is electromagnetic radiation emitted from electrons when they collide with molecules in the air.
You can't see protons either, but they can be detected and identified using modern scientific techniques.
When uranium fissions, you get Krypton, Barium and two neutrons, plus gamma rays. It might, instead, simply decay, releasing a beta particle and changing a neutron into a proton, thus stepping up the atomic number to a different element. Or it might eject an alpha (2 protons and 2 neutrons), double stepping down. The electrons travel until they are slowed by collision, then become static electricity. The Helium collects (our greatest source of helium commercially is radiactive ore deposits).
The neutrons simply escape, or possibly, invade other nuclei and raise their weight, perhaps making them into radioactive isotopes. That's part of how we make plutonium. All these reactions are possible, probabilities depending on the starting nucleus (and fission needs an starting neutron, and its energy (speed) is important as well). Protons are rarely seen all by themselves.
The Hiroshima bomb had a yield of 20,000 tons of TNT, whereas the Tsar fusion bomb had a yield 50,000,000 tons of TNT, some 2500 times the yield of the Hiroshima bomb.
there is a huge difference.......the tsar bomb was over 50 megatons while the bombs we dropped on japan were far smaller. looks are to subjective in order to make a calculation like that.
That is not correct. As explained a fusion of two hydrogen to make a helium releases 28 MeV, or 7 Mev/baryon. Splitting a Uranium atom releases about 192 MeV, but by weight it amounts to .81MeV/baryon. There are also engineering differences - a fission weapon doesn't scale up well, but fusion can.
wats da need of doin fusion? if u get 192 MeV of energy by the fission of only 1 uranium - 235 y do v need to do fusion, which only generates nearly 20 MeV?
The reason why, is that fission requires mining Uranium(and its isotopes) from the earth, and there is a limited supply. We will eventually run out of Uranium.
On the other hand, fusion requires hydrogen (and its isotopes) which we can get from oceans. Essentially, hydrogen is the most abundant element and we would have a limitless supply.
See my explanation above. The important part is that the energy has to be factored by the weight of the constituents. Additionally, U235 is very expensive to produce in the nearly pure form you need to have, while straining deuterium from ocean water is fairly easy, and like they said, He3 will be abundant on the moon (from catching solar wind).
Meh, the main advantage of He3 fusion is that it's aneutronic. It's not better enough than the D-T cycle to justify a lunar mining operation for the purposes of powering civilization on Earth - where D and Li are common, and we can breed T and extract energy from the neutrons without that much difficulty. He3 I think would be really nice for spacecraft fusion engines in the future though, where you'd want more easily controllable charged particles from which to extract energy and produce thrust.
Skrimyt 3 weeks ago
make your h3 generators today
cH33zewarri0r 4 weeks ago
AWESOME! Thanks a lot, I really wanted to know these things.
timewasteland 1 month ago
What about positron emission? A proton has a +1 positive charge, so one could say it has one proton, one positron, and one electron. By emitting the positron, you combine remaining proton and electron to make a neutron. Is it possible to emit a positron and convert a proton to a neutron?
MrPVP210 1 month ago
Haha the Music was actually catchy!
traviswatts14 1 month ago
good video... One question- the chemical reaction seems to be not balanced when you talk about substituting in the He-3. The reactants have 3 protons and the products have 2 protons. What am I missing?
bomanton 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
outstanding! what a clean presentation... i feel enlightened
opie4800 1 month ago
sorry im 15 and have a test very soon, how would they harvest helium??????
FreeKicksPFC 3 months ago
@FreeKicksPFC from the moooooon
FreeKicksPFC 3 months ago
Tritium can be created easily by combining the extra neutron with Li 6 or N 14. It would me much more efficient to pump liquid lithium or Nitrogen through the walls of a fusion reactor than to go all the way to the moon for fuel. As for deuterium, it can be extracted from seawater, and would provide power for one million years+
jack8n 3 months ago
but the problem is deuterium..... it exists mainly in heavy water ........ so we need to find a way to extract it from H2 O
MrSharan1997 3 months ago
@MrSharan1997
Heavy water is Deuterium oxide, and it makes up 6400 ppm of all water. The way that companies separate D2O is with a centrifuge.
jack8n 3 months ago
We're going to mars, not the moon...
antony1103 4 months ago
this is all very interesting, but this means world wide destruction because humans are smart and savage, looking into history obviously humans are more violent than smart so were inevitably doomed.
drummerdude0515 4 months ago
wow..Its really good...
blue0092008 5 months ago
I dunno.
Space program is about to hit Recycling can. Why ? Because in the cold war Russians and Americans rushed into space, money was being supported from Millitary funds. Now space is unprofitable and yes we live in Capitalism so it's not interesting anymore. Science tends to burn money not produce it, but it's goal is for greater good. Who follows those standards these days right ?
Also to imitate the Sun is a bit far fetched, we have greater chance of making a cold fusion in ITHER
DarkRezo 6 months ago
now I know why, we're going back to the moon ;)
julianjlawrence 7 months ago 4
if we could create our own mini star, wouldnt we need an astronomical amount of hydrogen to convert into helium? Even the sun is finite.
cmsgtluna 8 months ago
So this idea of harvesting from the moon brings a few questions to mind. Now I know that 25 tons is minuscule in proportion compared to the overall mass of the moon. So mining from the moon in the beginning most likely wouldn't be a problem. However, over time it could potentially have a greater effect on our planet and it's planetary functions. Just looking for some insight here.
AFullerton86 8 months ago 2
@AFullerton86 Everything we do -- or DON'T do -- has an impact on the planet. We ARE part of the ecosystem. We just need to choose our impacts wisely for the benefit of ourselves and other parts of that system.
cassiopeiaproject 8 months ago 4
@cassiopeiaproject yeah but if you take away the moon EVERYTHING would just go to hell
timsaurusrex 3 months ago
@cassiopeiaproject If I'm not mistaken, H^3 is scattered on the surface of the moon. Therefore no under the surface mining is required, rather just gathering top soil.
*I believe* it is because elements from the sun are changed within and bounced off of our atmosphere into space and since the moon does not have a substantial atmosphere to reflect the element like the Earth does, the moon catches some of these reflected elements where it, for the most part, sits on the top meters of the surface.
CptUSMC 2 months ago
@AFullerton86 Silly people, the moon is made of cheese.
jmitterii2 3 weeks ago
@AFullerton86 seems conceivable to me that it could develop potential to effect the earth - moon system. as energy demands rise exponentially it's natural to figure that moon mining would follow suit in order to feed demand. added to this is the reduced mass of the moon and the increased mass of earth - the numbers would for a long time be trivial, but perhaps considerable after some time. do you have any thoughts?
bongeye420 1 week ago in playlist More videos from cassiopeiaproject
the music reminds me somehow of resident evil :P
METALFREAK193 8 months ago
Wake up and smell reality people. Those of you who think we have not gone to the moon are no better than birthers, deathers, and every other conspiracy nut. You all obviously have no faith in human ingenuity. I wish that our species could be a little more accepting of amazing achievements and great discoveries.
macreviewer76 8 months ago
@macreviewer76 whats so amazing about splitting an atom? WHAT? Is it the knowledge of sub atomic building blocks that gets you morons off? Hope you all get radiation poisoning and birth a mutant.
NebulizedNarcosis 8 months ago
The most ridiculous method of boiling water ever conceived! We should shut down all of these water boiling plants and send the radioactive material back to the sun where it would feel more at home. Steam used to power generators that could easily be powered by the kinetic energy of A DOZEN OTHER SOURCES THAT DO NOT CREATE SUCH DANGEROUS CENTURY LONG PROBLEMS! Some of these nuclear scientists are COMPLETE LEFT BRAIN MORONS!
NebulizedNarcosis 8 months ago
@NebulizedNarcosis A) the sun uses fusion, and thus produces almost no radiation like in fission, you obviously have not payed any attention to the video. radioactive material like uranium would never survive and does not exist on, or in the sun B) The energy efficiency of using fission completely outweighs that of any other energy source in use today, so you would be an idiot to say that we can just use a load of coal and oil to satisfy all of our needs when, long term, it would be impossible
macreviewer76 8 months ago
@macreviewer76 who said anything about coil and oil ? I am saying that the best place to send FATAL radioactive byproducts is the sun. Stop splitting hairs like you even have a mind of your own you regurgitating science drone. You actually believe the manipulation of atoms for energy is our key to abundant motor spinning? Or maybe, you work for the oil barons and would love nothing more than to see a few more Chernobyls, occurring of course only on lunar eclipses when in alignment with Pluto.
NebulizedNarcosis 8 months ago
Comment removed
stevethebarbarian99 9 months ago
EVOLUTION DID!
SilverTissues 9 months ago
God made the atom. :)
GanEdenAustralia 9 months ago
@GanEdenAustralia ... And what made god?
crushnkill 9 months ago
@crushnkill More importantly, who made your brain?
GanEdenAustralia 9 months ago
sorry but i dont get how much binding energy is released, i thought the product of fission is supposed to use less binding energy than the original atom and the free binding energy is released as energy?
drfanis 10 months ago
haha, intelligent human baing, that's because
1. They trust the Ideas of others.
2. Those ideas were known chronologically, staring from aristotle to our modern day Dr.Joe haha
Lloydy9101 10 months ago
MeV stands for MEGA electron volts and meV stands for milli electron volts. the difference is in the lower and uppercase "m's"
gatoradeee 10 months ago
I'm at 2:46 and I already love this video...
Thanks!
Rotemetoot 10 months ago
I hate his fucking dialect.
Fistinator1337 10 months ago 2
So at the end there, the max payload would be for takeoff, right? But we'd be bringing back He3 from the moon, right? And the space shuttle doesn't travel to the moon anyway. This last idea is just crazy to throw into this otherwise great video...
fordskydog 10 months ago 2
6:07pm Tuesday (CST) - Time in Mississippi
GelandnaleG 1 year ago
Comment removed
GelandnaleG 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MAY EYE PLEASE GO HOME NOW.
-God
GelandnaleG 1 year ago
Comment removed
GelandnaleG 1 year ago
Comment removed
GelandnaleG 1 year ago
Comment removed
GelandnaleG 1 year ago
Comment removed
GelandnaleG 1 year ago
Comment removed
GelandnaleG 1 year ago
we are not going back to the moon. it's fairly clear that we never went to the moon.. it was just one huge hoax...There are so many obstacles that will not permit man to reach the moon. at least not with the actual technology..maybe one day in the future, but i'd doubt it if it 'll ever happen..
rezanoei 1 year ago
@rezanoei Have you got a physics degree? Because anyone with even a GCSE in physics could calculate that it is easily possible to get to the moon.
9hello123 10 months ago
@9hello123 YES in theory it is easily possible. In theory, we can travel at the speed of the light as well. u'd only need strong gravitational force(blackhole) and something to keep u in its orbit, then in theory u've got yourself a time machine. BUT in reality it's impossible, at least not with today's technology. So let me teach you something here; just because it's possible on paper, it doesn't mean it's feasible.we never went to the moon because we haven't acquired the technology to do so.
rezanoei 10 months ago
@rezanoei No, you are completely and utterly wrong.
One you don't understand what the word theory means, you used it completely out of context every time in that paragraph. Yes its possible to make a time machine, to the future not the past, and no its not impossible with todays technology, we have already done it.
Going to the moon is EASILY possible. It would take very very little technology, all it would need to be would be fairly expensive (less expensive than hoaxing it would be).
9hello123 10 months ago
@9hello123 completely and utterly !! haha let me teach u something about english literature,, utterly means completely.. lol don't try to sound fancy when u don't have a good knowledge of english language. secondly, theory means an assumption based on limited information or knowledge.. and yes i got a degree in physics. I told u before, there are so many obstacles preventing us to reach the moon, one of them being "solar flares ".. but hey, if u wanna be a sheep , then be a sheep...winks
rezanoei 10 months ago
@rezanoei You're trying to correct my English yet you are typing "u"
No theory does not mean an assumption based on limited information or knowledge,it means explanation. It has nothing to do with the amount of proof for it.No you don't have a physics degree or you would know that. Solar flares not only are fairly rare to be aimed at the Earth,nearly all are virtually harmless as proven by our satellites are a lot more vulnerable to solar flares than people are, but they aren't all destroyed.
9hello123 10 months ago
@9hello123 Actually, a theory, in scientific terms, is always backed up by evidence. If you have no evidence it is called a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation for some natural occurrence, that can be validated by experiment. So a theory must be testable, and validated by the data resulting from such tests. If you're theory is not validated by data, then you must revise your original hypothesis and see if you can validate it. Only once backed by data do scientists call it a theory.
fordskydog 10 months ago
@rezanoei And you say "In theory, we can travel at the speed of the light as well. " Which even assuming that theory means what you say it does (it doesn't) still is incorrect. It is impossible to reach the speed of light. Don't bother claiming you have a physics degree, it's so obvious you don't.
9hello123 10 months ago
@rezanoei A direct, high powered solar flare would kill an astronaut. However none that powerful have occurred since 1859.
9hello123 10 months ago
@9hello123 listen, i don't need to prove u if i have a degree in physics or not.. i told u, believe what u want, it's a free world.. the problem with the american government is that their foundations have always been based on deceit and robbing people from their rights..it's funny that a bunch of thieves and liars are governing the world .. It's your choice if u wanna be fooled by them, and believe whatever they are trying to feed you.
rezanoei 10 months ago
@rezanoei The American government are the government of America not the world.
I don't believe what they feed me, unlike you I actually have an education in physics and know without being told exactly how it is possible to get to the moon. I'm sure if I can easily calculate ways to do it if I had the money, a large organised team with countless amounts of manhours and money could also figure out ways to do it.
Not to mention the reflectors on the moon are absolute proof anyway.
9hello123 10 months ago
@rezanoei And the reason you "don't need to prove u if i have a degree in physics or not" is because, quite simple, you don't have one.
9hello123 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sorry, i need an explenation... Why it's said that anytime a fission of uranium take place we get 192 Mev of energy and when we fuse H2 and H3 to get He4 we gwt 18? Isn't it unconvinient. i know that fusion is more convenient than fission!
Thank a lot!
P.S. The video is amazin! congraturations!
giovannimazzoleni 1 year ago
@giovannimazzoleni Because that's what happens? I don't understand what you want explaining, are you asking why don't scientists just make up random results?
9hello123 10 months ago
Sorry, i need an explenation... Why it's said that anytime a fission of uranium take place we get 192 Mev of energy and when we fuse H2 and H3 to get He4 we gwt 18? Isn't it unconvinient. i know that fusion is more convenient than fission!
Thank a lot!
P.S. The video is amazin! congraturations!
giovannimazzoleni 1 year ago
actualy u are all wrong !!! it has a quantom equation of 50
mrach1911 1 year ago
WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON.
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
Comment removed
GelandnaleG 1 year ago
How can the nucleus of an Iron atom have 60 nucleons if it's atomic number is only 29? Sorry if it's a stupid question, I'm just trying to make sense of all this.
imtheduke 1 year ago
@imtheduke "nucleons" is a collective term that includes both protons and neutrons.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago 3
@cassiopeiaproject So Iron would have 26 protons ( and 26 electrons) and about 34 neutrons right?
imtheduke 1 year ago 2
@imtheduke Exactly correct on the protons and electrons. There are four naturally occurring isotopes of iron (different number of neutrons in the nucleus). They have 28, 30, 31, and 32 neutrons. There is an isotope of iron with 34 neutrons, but is is extinct on earth.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject thanks for the info, and thank you Carl Sagan. I had forgotten so much about these basic principles of chemistry and science in general since leaving school years ago. Sagan's work got me interested again and I'm relearning a lot.
imtheduke 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject Sorry. I cannot relate to this topic. Haha. This is for intelligent human being. Hahah. THumbs up
alvinf1209 10 months ago
@imtheduke. The atomic no. (also known as the proton number) only accounts for the amount of protons in the atom (also the no. of protons in atom = no. of electrons). However the top number, or nucleon number accounts for the amount of nucleons in the atom (nucleon is the combination of protons and neutrons).Therefore by subtracting the proton no. from the nucleon no. you can find the amount of neutrons in the atom. In this case there are 31 neutrons in the iron atom (60 - 29).
123michaeljones 9 months ago
More proof of science and less credibility to religion.
stevjen1 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject
@pufla
thank you (:
sakainesscool 1 year ago
Al quran already talked about this things!
groundzerobuild 1 year ago
The Space Shuttle doesn't have enough energy to get to the Moon. Apollo was able to moonland 41 tons with Saturn V.
mrrn100 1 year ago
So intresting...
NoobyIntellect 1 year ago
Comment removed
GelandnaleG 1 year ago
Comment removed
GelandnaleG 1 year ago
where is the hot girl?
343TheSentient 1 year ago
1Mev = 931 J
abhinayan27 1 year ago
MeV is actually pronouced "mega" electron volt
its SI units... great video!
RTRVII 1 year ago
At 1:28 he said that with iron and nickel have 16 nucleons in the nucleus and the nucleus is more than 2 1/2 nucleons wide. My question is... how can the nucleus be only 2 1/2 nucleons wide when there are that many nucleons in it?
tubin199 1 year ago
@tubin199 It's a diameter, use it to calculate the volume of a sphere.
clerlic 1 year ago
@tubin199 Actually he says it has a RADIUS of about that. And a sphere with such a radius has a volume sufficient to contain 16 or so nucleons.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago
@tubin199 lol don't you know how to calculate the volume of a sphere?
hazzard77 1 year ago
MeV - million volt ?
sakainesscool 1 year ago
@sakainesscool Million(Mega) Electron Volts
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago
@sakainesscool M = Mega eV= Ektronvolt /Avrage energy released.
pufla 1 year ago
Thnx for the Vid! sure helped me alot :)
a51nxm17x 1 year ago
Poster must have made this before they decided to phase out the shuttle, or he is so into Star Trek that he dreams of some future utopian society is mankind ever solves the energy crisis, as if that would solve everything, lol
sphinxrising58 1 year ago
cool... i mean hot... :-)
marcehole 1 year ago
Going back to the moon? We havent even been there ONCE yet.......
weirdscience81 1 year ago
to mine the moon? great
DaeOh 1 year ago
or to keep the options open, don't forget that one could just remove/cancel the strong force(of effect of).to make this reaction achievable at any temperature/pressure.
masluxx 1 year ago
wouldnt it be easier to add a neutron to a proton? then we would end up with 2 MeV,deterium and there is no EM force to worry about :O
uut0 1 year ago
@uut0 Sure, but the availability of free neutrons is a problem. There aren't enough to make this reaction useful.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject Right. The lifetime of a free neutron is only about 10 minutes, so it's not as if we can get them out of a mine somewhere. We could generate them using a nuclear fission reactor, but that is what we're trying to get away from.
emperormax 1 year ago
Utsuho is near
NorthernChild10 1 year ago
Atom never split or never divided
Iberedmas 1 year ago
Cool video. Very easy to understand and well explained.
ohmstemr77 1 year ago
can someone plz tell me what kind of music he was playing...the one at 4:37 !!!!! i really would like to know...sounds so hauntingly beautiful.
wnymph 1 year ago
would be cool if I could understand this language :P
pithikoulis 1 year ago
my mommy said fission look like asteroids game
i like asteroids
vrfl 1 year ago
And please... call the unit what it is! It's not a friggin "MeV" -- it's a MEGAELECTRONVOLT.
originalrhombus 1 year ago
You know, I love these videos, but this guy's voice is annoying.
originalrhombus 1 year ago
And please... call the unit what it is! It's not a friggin "MeV" -- it's a MEGAELECTRONVOLT.
originalrhombus 1 year ago
@originalrhombus MeV is a standard abbreviation.
oilotnoM 1 year ago
@originalrhombus well if you were somewhat smart you would know scientist and engineers are all about efficiency therefore we say MeV
dman7577 1 year ago
some body's on the moon and for forty years they been making sure that oil wouldnt be a second option and that this energy would be put in its place!````` the moon revolves around the earth and rotates on its axis once per month "" whats the word for that
masterj9000 1 year ago
Well, no need to worrie about harvesting moon rock. Apparently 1% of the ocean contains deuterium. = ) N im pretty sure we're not going to run out of that anytime soon.
03kingh 1 year ago
a so desu ne!
BBZZZZZ 1 year ago
if we mine the dang moon, arent we going to lower its mass and this will disturb its gravitational orbit with the earth since it will disturb the force of attraction with earth? in other words, we mine the moon and bang it will fling out of orbit and we we' ll probably be all fucked up cause its the moon that holds the oceans together at one peice, etc.
6SpAr6TAN69 1 year ago
should we fuck w/ the orignal ways of nature? Man-made created energy, the energy by the billions that man wants to create, is it not going to interfere w/ the energy created by nature that already exists & is balanced?
bubblesmgee 1 year ago
@bubblesmgee so far as you are concerned no. Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed. We take energy from nature, it goes back to nature.
BBZZZZZ 1 year ago
@BBZZZZZ I know it cannot be created or destroyed, but will the transformations that man creates, interfere or create new energy that will interfere w/ the stability that already exists, it's not the energy type that I'm concerned about, it's the amount, yes energy goes back to nature, but what does it do to the world in the mean time, especially w/ large amounts? Don't u think that it might produce a kind of energy war, & thus throw the balance of the planet off?
bubblesmgee 1 year ago
cool, i thought deuterium was fictional, like in star trek.
ham236 1 year ago
this worlds gonna end from this shit
mqzmcq13 1 year ago
I love scientific videos. All of your videos are interesting. Mom can barely understand it. I can.
deoxy999 1 year ago
5:00pm Thursday (CDT) - Time in Mississippi, United States of America
DoubleDutchBust 1 year ago
ignorants would say u'll kill us, poor basterds
science is mankind future, so ignorants go live in the bushes like animals
sciencefreak85 1 year ago
Comment removed
deoxy999 1 year ago
BADASS
crazysoccerman14 1 year ago
We are not going back to the moon. Also, tritium is not the reason we would go back there, if we did. There is no such thing as a controlled, economical fusion reaction, and it is unlikely we will have one in the near future.
meichenl 1 year ago
not with that attitude
shinkster12 1 year ago
@meichenl it is possible tho... what is this H3 and why cant we manufacture it ?
adamsx01x 1 year ago
@meichenl
Well, I guess that makes you the stupid one.
Blitz4000 1 year ago
Once opon a time there was a country called america, which played with forces it couldnt handle and it exploded.
And everyone else celebrated and lived hapily evr after. YAY
Danemarkofmalvern 1 year ago
@Danemarkofmalvern That was not funny.
deoxy999 1 year ago
@deoxy999 true tho.........
americas the 2nd least popular country in the world! the only country more hated then the usa is pakistan!
Danemarkofmalvern 1 year ago
@Danemarkofmalvern We're (USA) aren't leading the way on this...
fordskydog 10 months ago
@fordskydog i made that comment a year ago... and i stand by it, who built the safety back-up rods for chernobyl, america, who dropped the atom bombs, america, who gave osama bin ladens father fissionable uranium in return for oil, making him one of the richest men in the world? ummm france? no, germany? no, oh thats right! it was america :)
Danemarkofmalvern 10 months ago
@Danemarkofmalvern I don't get your point. "which played with forces it couldn't handle and it exploded." My point was USA is no longer leader in nuclear reactor research. Are you saying USA is foolhardy and has destroyed itself? Do you mean nuclear forces? Or political forces? How has USA "exploded?" Are you implying has, will destroy itself? Maybe our demise will arise from corp greed, allowing oil companies to kill development of the next big thing. We aren't investing in our future.
fordskydog 10 months ago
Thanks. That was very intuitive.
Emocritisism 1 year ago
I wish imaginary borders like "The USA" will one day dissapear, in the name of science and humanity.
IcedPhoenix666 2 years ago 21
They will. We will all die, and BOOM, no more borders!
Turminak 2 years ago 7
they will
chaseantarctica 2 years ago
@IcedPhoenix666 actually there are several good reasons for borders, 1 is to keep foreign diseases and illnesses away from places that arent immune to said illness. 2 is to keep drugs away from the country. 3 is to keep foreign animals from destroying crops, produce, and any number of things.
hellbreaker6666 2 years ago
There are advantages and disadvantages to everything. All these problems you name are controllable or solvable, and not necessarily by only one way.
In order for science to advance together, we must be together. On the political side, it is not fair that person A gets exceptional health care and legal defence, and person B gets zero, just because they were born on different sides of an imaginary line.
IcedPhoenix666 2 years ago
you have a point but right now borders are the only way to keep whatever it is out but until the day borders become obsolete i will welcome those who pass through
hellbreaker6666 2 years ago
I would like to imagine a world without borders but I can't imagine the people who would regulate the laws and control the government of the new world.
Xjak 2 years ago
true
hellbreaker6666 2 years ago
They will but not under science. Under concealed government movement..
MrStephenFrohnhofer 2 years ago
@IcedPhoenix666 One day, It'll probably take almost decimation by either ourselves or an alien race for it to occur though :(
n3rd89 1 year ago
@IcedPhoenix666
Science is in the hands of very powerful capitalist/corporate interests who gain great advantage from it's development. I suppose you could substitute Capitalism for "The USA"
And by tge wY
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IcedPhoenix666
Science is in the hands of very powerful capitalist/corporate interests who gain great advantage from it's development. I suppose you could substitute Capitalism for "The USA"
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
man GET A LIFE PEOPLE if your gonna spend your time online just screwing with people, then your nothing than just a crap stain in the bottom of society's pants, please just make a comment on the video, and quit the kindergarten crap, save the insults for springer, or your dead grandmas rotten crotch..
Luvan 2 years ago
lol so i read through the comments and i'm curious.....how does a video on fission and fusion end up being people insulting eachother about the lifestyle....
reedalej 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OH now this reminds of the new movie MOON
however the movie has a darker side :D in the movie they cloned the worker that mined the he 3 and he never knew :D
ofc that has nothing to do with the science behind it ^^ (atleast now i know why they called it he3 ..i thaught it was was He3 as in a molecule ...i forgot it could be an isotope)
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
Comment removed
TigerSlashX 2 years ago
For a dollar
betahdanu 2 years ago
So, at the end of the day a Nuclear_power plant is nothing more than a steam-engine with a fancy replacement for the charcoal.
There's got be a better way of harnessing energy from atomic-fission, isn't there - ok, that sounds rather pretentious of me implying nobody ever thought there might be a better way of doing that but still, the question remains: isn't there a more efficient way of harnessing energy from atomic-fission than boiling water?
tommytalks77 2 years ago
ur gey
TigerSlashX 2 years ago
you know, people with such an obsession with homosexuals invariable have an inner desire of experimenting sex with the same gender but it is usually a feeling supressed by all the tabus society forces into our heads so it is manifested via an angry attitude towards homosexuals. Brake free dude.
Now judging by the content of your comments I'd say you are not equipped to understand such a statement. Lol, so I'll translate for you:
Get out of the closet, lol... "tigerslash" (how embarassing)
tommytalks77 2 years ago 2
I am actually gay and comfortable with my sexuality. I was being sarcastic and I thought I made that clear by my blatant spelling errors.
I just love the way people react when they write out a huge reply and get the stupidest thing ever back.
TigerSlashX 2 years ago
when you are talking about fission, the energy released is thermal. if you want to convert thermal energy, you have to use it to heat something up. i am not certain but id imagine the method is pretty much perfected (really efficient)
PoeticAdaptation 2 years ago
It depends on what you want to use the energy for. As advanced as we may think of ourselves, our approach to energy production and use is pretty stone age-ish. Creating thermal energy, and trying to trick the universe out of squandering most of it, is not very efficient; it does well if you want to heat space (like homes) directly, but there are better ways of harnessing it for electrical power. Fuel cells and the like are the start of a rational engineering in that direction.
puncheex 2 years ago
...Chemical synthesis can be much better done by focusing appropriate radio, microwave or light frequencies rather than just blasting them with heat. Eventually our means will catch up with our dreams and these will become a better way.
puncheex 2 years ago
except 1 detail. you can't (yet) make a fusion reaction, cause it needs a lot of heat and pressure. fusion is only possible in stars and other cosmic objects. but if we could it would be awsome. you could make deuterium out of protium and get energy, and then split it to protium, and get more energy. you would be making energy with just two molecules of protium.
MrOllie94 2 years ago
Can't do that. You may indeed get energy by combining hydrogen into helium, but splitting them back down absorbs that same energy. You don't get something for nothing.
We are approaching fusion (slowly) through magnetic containment (Tokamak and like reactors) and through inertial containment, where we zap a bead of Deuterium with lasers. They are difficult to control, but eventually the difficulties will likely be overcome. Then there is always the way-longshot hope of some sort of cold fusion.
puncheex 2 years ago
this video is a great help, thankyou!
whitie90 2 years ago 2
where do protons go, when uranium decays
electrons become beta radiations, n we can see them in lightning but what abou' protons, where can we see them except an atom?
yamjayamjabulba 2 years ago
Actually, you don't see electrons in lightning. What you do see is electromagnetic radiation emitted from electrons when they collide with molecules in the air.
You can't see protons either, but they can be detected and identified using modern scientific techniques.
CassiopeiaMember 2 years ago
Can't extremely large concentrations of electrons be seen with the naked eye
yamjayamjabulba 2 years ago
Yes, when combined in ordinary matter.
CassiopeiaMember 2 years ago 2
sometimes protons come out as alpha radiation.
keggerous 2 years ago
When uranium fissions, you get Krypton, Barium and two neutrons, plus gamma rays. It might, instead, simply decay, releasing a beta particle and changing a neutron into a proton, thus stepping up the atomic number to a different element. Or it might eject an alpha (2 protons and 2 neutrons), double stepping down. The electrons travel until they are slowed by collision, then become static electricity. The Helium collects (our greatest source of helium commercially is radiactive ore deposits).
puncheex 2 years ago
The neutrons simply escape, or possibly, invade other nuclei and raise their weight, perhaps making them into radioactive isotopes. That's part of how we make plutonium. All these reactions are possible, probabilities depending on the starting nucleus (and fission needs an starting neutron, and its energy (speed) is important as well). Protons are rarely seen all by themselves.
puncheex 2 years ago
y did da bomb of hiroshima (FISSION) looked small infront of the Tsar bomb (FUSION)?
well, frm dis video, fission looks a lot stronger
yamjayamjabulba 2 years ago
The Hiroshima bomb had a yield of 20,000 tons of TNT, whereas the Tsar fusion bomb had a yield 50,000,000 tons of TNT, some 2500 times the yield of the Hiroshima bomb.
CassiopeiaMember 2 years ago
there is a huge difference.......the tsar bomb was over 50 megatons while the bombs we dropped on japan were far smaller. looks are to subjective in order to make a calculation like that.
keggerous 2 years ago
That is not correct. As explained a fusion of two hydrogen to make a helium releases 28 MeV, or 7 Mev/baryon. Splitting a Uranium atom releases about 192 MeV, but by weight it amounts to .81MeV/baryon. There are also engineering differences - a fission weapon doesn't scale up well, but fusion can.
puncheex 2 years ago
wats da need of doin fusion? if u get 192 MeV of energy by the fission of only 1 uranium - 235 y do v need to do fusion, which only generates nearly 20 MeV?
PLZ PLZ PLZ PLZ reply
yamjayamjabulba 2 years ago
The reason why, is that fission requires mining Uranium(and its isotopes) from the earth, and there is a limited supply. We will eventually run out of Uranium.
On the other hand, fusion requires hydrogen (and its isotopes) which we can get from oceans. Essentially, hydrogen is the most abundant element and we would have a limitless supply.
CassiopeiaMember 2 years ago
See my explanation above. The important part is that the energy has to be factored by the weight of the constituents. Additionally, U235 is very expensive to produce in the nearly pure form you need to have, while straining deuterium from ocean water is fairly easy, and like they said, He3 will be abundant on the moon (from catching solar wind).
puncheex 2 years ago